RE: Big Yes for Formulaic Writing

[Katherine Fischer <kfischer@keller.clarke.edu>]

Richard,
I agree that most English faculty do not teach "The 5P Theme." In fact, at
the suggestion of such a thing, most would be likely to run out of the
room with their hands over their ears screaming, "Not me!  Not me!"  But
call it five paragraphs or the academic essay or the traditional essay or
what you will, much of the results are the same, at least in most cases.

In most cases, writers adhering to the form, that one with its roots
in Francis Bacon in his attempts to explain scientifically things like
ethics and emotions, include a thesis statement early in the essay.  The
rest of the essay offers "proofs," support, detailing of that main thesis.
Even in papers not labeled "persusive/argumentative," the main purpose is
to convince the reader of the writer's point or perspective.  There isn't
usually much sense of dialog, the hesitant, conjecture, etc.  The focus is
normally on promoting some single answer to some issue, topic, or concern.

The writer more or less judges whether or not the paper "works" by how
effective s/he convinces the reader to agree.  If the reader finishees and
doesn't agree, we say either the writer "failed" or the reader is just to
dim to "get it."

Of course, this leaves out multiple possibilities when exploring a topic
or when researching.  Of course, it treats the universe as if the world
really is an orderly, packageable place.  Of course, it also denies the
reader's part in the relationship between reader and writer.  etc.  I find
these outcomes bothersome and reductive.

Yet I love structure.  But I love a structure that rises out of the bone
pile to support the particular skeleton I'm putting together rather than
the one in the next lab down the hall.  I don't want my monkey to look
like a horse and I don't understand why nearly everyone who supports
"the formal academic essay" feels I have to learn the horse structure as
the sole important one when there are so many animals  and things I hope
to construct in my writing life.

What am I saying?  Give me liberty or give me the monkey?

Katie

On Tue, 2 Jun 1998, Richard Long wrote:

> All this talk about the 5-paragraph essay is rather unusual for me. First
> because, from my experience, it seems that most students coming to college
> from high school are already familiar with the model. It's a kind of
> writing that they are comfortable with, and much of my commentary on their
> writing focuses on how to break away from that model, simply often by
> taking any paragraph in the body and splitting it into two or more, and
> then further developing each one. Students say, "I can't do that." I say,
> "You can." And second because I believe there is a value in teaching
> structure like the 5-paragraph essay. For one, it can be a starting point.
> Students can first write the model, then break it down into more
> paragraphs. Also, there are in fact audiences, other than some teachers,
> who expect a clean, concise structure. And third, there are times when
> writing must be quick, when there isn't time to explore the most creative
> structure, when writing must be utilitarian. It seems that much of this
> 5-paragraph discussion assumes that all writing must somehow be creative
> (in the fine arts sense) and original. That is simply not the case.
> Finally, this discussion is unusual because I think the problem is
> exaggerated. I don't teach at an especially enlightened school. The English
> Department here is mostly literature faculty, with little knowledge of
> contemporary writing theory or pedagogy, but I know of no one who insists
> that all writing be the 5-paragraph essay. I'd even venture that the
> faculty would say most students are quiet good at structuring content,
> albeit lacking, into five paragraphs. Most of the faculty here focuses on
> content. If there be a problem, it's that too often they're overly
> concerned with grammar.
> 
> Richard Long
> Daemen College
> 
>